Posted on 10/06/2005 3:13:10 AM PDT by KMAJ2
There is no denying that the Meirs nomination has caused a stir. The vitriol has risen in a short sighted furor emblematic of ideological elitism. What was once the purview of the progressive left has taken root in the conservative wing. Only only has to look at the postings in Free Republic. The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers, as the poster champions his elite point of view by defaming those who disagree. Rather than discussing on a reasoned basis, it has become the land of ad hominem and non sequiturs.
I do not think anyone believes Meirs is the best qualified, strictly going by having a paper trail. I doubt Bush really believes she is the best qualified in that aspect. So why would he choose her ? What led up to his making that choice. Whether we conservatives agree or disagree with certain of his policies, he is not a stupid man and he has shown himself to have good political instincts.
What I never see mentioned, can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ? Has he nominated anyone who has not fulfilled his promise ? He deserves a little more respect than he is being given on this front. His record is spotless on judicial nominations.
I have only seen one writer, Thomas Lifson, who has even hinted about how this nomination came about, none with an in depth analysis and/or strategy in the lead up. I offer this up for your reasoned thought.
Originally Meirs was not on the list for the very reason many have qualms, no extensive judicial bona fides (writings), and for obvious reasons, she is his advisor, an evangelical Christian, pro-life and conservative.
To Bush's surprise, democrats Reid and Leahy have her on their lists of suggested nominees. Why would these two democrat leaders put a pro-lifer on their list ? What reason would make any sense to explain it ? Because she was nice to them on the phone ? Does anyone really think they thought Bush would really nominate her ? No, she was on there as a bluff, so the democrats could say "See, we even offered conservative choices, and he ignored us." They would have used her as evidence that Bush was not playing fair in their case to the public.
Bush, being a skilled poker player, recognized the bluff, and called them on it. Meirs is the nominee. Who knows Meirs better than Bush, outside of Texas Supreme Court Judge Hecht in Texas ? She is not the lightweight many try to paint her as, you do not get voted among the Top 100 most influential attornies in the U.S. twice without having some legal savvy and expertise.
Right now, the democrats are hoping and praying the conservatives self-destruct and blow up her nomination, it is their only chance to escape and save face. If the conservatives open their eyes and see the big picture, NARAL, NOW and all the left wing women's groups are going to go ballistic if Meirs is supported by the democrats, yet, if they go back on their word, and fillibuster or block her, or attack her on religious grounds, they become hypocrites and the negative PR will be even more than the 'old media' can cover up.
If the democrats manage to defeat her or block her, Bush can then say, "I listened to you, and you still blocked her, I see no further need to waste time consulting with you", and a documented ideological conservative is nominated, the constitutional option is invoked and the democrats get the blame.
Mark my words, that ideological battle many conservatives are looking for is going to happen. The democrats CANNOT allow a capable, conservtive, pro-life, evangelical Christian attorney, who worships Bush, end up on the Supreme Court. Their special interest groups, especially the feminists, will revolt, the firestorm will tear the democrats apart.
My gut feeling on Meirs is she could possibly end up being to the right of Scalia and Thomas, paper trail or no paper trail, at worst, she will march lockstep with Roberts.
It is fine to be apprehensive, it is fine to ask questions, but draw in the claws, judicial nominations is one place where Bush's record is beyond reproach. The poison and venom need to stop, let the left eat their own, conservatives are supposed to be smarter than this.
This has to be one of the savviest political poker maneuvers I have seen. Misunderestimated by the democrats again ? This time he did it so well, it went over the heads of many conservatives.
Miers is the President's choice. Time for everbody to get on board. End of discussion.
[[I have yet to call one Harriet supporter a name. Meanwhile I have been told to go back to DU, called a liberal, a moonbat, and much more. I am not just gonna walk lockstep in what I think was not a wise pick. Bush could of handled both these choices better.]]
Go back and read my original posting. I do not think you will find that I singled out either side as being the exclusive purveyor of vituperative rhetoric.
You may have assumed because I posted a defense or explanation of how the Miers pick came about, I was taking sides. My point was to focus on reasoned disagreement. You are free to disagree, irrelevant attacks, by some, on Bush for other policies adds nothing to the factual debate other than proving one hates Bush and thus hates the nomination or anything else he does. The verbal back and forth of 'If you don't toe my conservative line you are a traitor to the conservative cause' or 'If you don't support Bush no matter what, you are a traitor' is all so much pablum and detritus.
Though I am leaning towards her, my own research is the basis for my opinion, but I am waiting for more information.
[[Reagan said, "trust, but verify." We are at the verify point now.]]
Frank, I think the key to your observation would come down to definition of verify. Does that mean attack ? By all means verify, but do it in a reasoned manner. Some of the opposition to Miers starts from distrust, not trust, which almost makes that quote irrelevant. Citing Reagan, who I think is one of our greatest presidents, on Justices when he gave us O'Connor and the internationalist Kennedy, only reveals that these 'papered' nominees are as risky and unknown.
"Sexism?" Now we have leaders in the Republican party sounding like the Nags and Jesse Jackson. Tells you what they really think.
[[You DO NOT post a personal rant on the FR, refer to the FR to an audience that, from the context of the article, isn't reading it on the Free Republic, and pretend it's a real article. It's a fake. And manipulation.]]
Personal rant ? I thought I was posting an opinion. I do not think I singled out any individuals in the original, though it is apparent it hit close to home for some, gauging by their reactions.
Because I referred to Free Republic by name instead of using 'here', makes it a fake ? I made many punctuation, grammatical and spelling errors, but there was no 'fake'. I did not attribute it to another source or another author, those would be your basic clues. I think it is more a case of comprehension and not manipulation. Quite obviously you disagree with my opinion, but rather than address it substantively, you chose to take this direction.
"Miers is the President's choice. Time for everbody to get on board. End of discussion."
A very totalitarian response. "Whatever the leader wants, we must blindly follow." People like you are the reason the GOP is hemorraging. You remind me of a bad aunt saying, "Eat your prunes, son, or we'll send you to bed."
First of all, let me say that it was obvious to anyone who carefully reads posts on FR, that your post was a vanity, and a personal opinion. Secondly, those who attacked you for your opinion are acting childish. Those sort of attacks and emotional responses are better suited for DU, not mature adults who look to FR for adult discussions.
Thirdly, I appreciate your post and am disgusted at our supposedly fellow Republicans who seem to think they and they alone know who would have been the best nominee. For those who seem to think they can predict the future, and those who think they know more about Miers than President Bush, I would like to ask this question. Would you please gaze into your crystal ball and tell me where I misplaced the instruction manual for my new digital camera? Also, please tell me where I can purchase one of those crystal balls you put so much faith in?
Oh, and may I had, "BUMP!"
[[If the fight is going to happen anyway, why fight over an unknown and untested nominee with skimpy judicial qualifications?]]
Take a step back and think about it. If you are going into a fight, don't you want as many advantages in that fight as possible ? Like I said, Leahy and Reid recommended her as a bluff, they did not think Bush would nominate her, it was a stupid political mistake on their part and gave Bush potent ammunition.
You have a chance here, if the democrats take up the battle here, which I think they will have no choice, you can fracture the base and feminist support because of Leahy and Reid making that mistake. Do you really think NARAL, NOW and other feminist and left wing organizations are going to sit quietly for a capable, pro-life, evangelical Christian conservative becoming a Supreme Court Justice ? Not on your life. But, they are smart enough to sit back and see if the conservatives will do their job for them.
If you make this battle with some documented ideological conservative, you don't fracture their base, you unite it and make it a much tougher battle, one you could very well lose with the RINOs in the Senate.
If I am going to have a bloody battle, I would rather make sure I have the best shot at winning. Losing, and saying I gave my best, is not an option at this critical time.
[[If the fight is going to happen anyway, why fight over an unknown and untested nominee with skimpy judicial qualifications?]]
Take a step back and think about it. If you are going into a fight, don't you want as many advantages in that fight as possible ? Like I said, Leahy and Reid recommended her as a bluff, they did not think Bush would nominate her, it was a stupid political mistake on their part and gave Bush potent ammunition.
You have a chance here, if the democrats take up the battle here, which I think they will have no choice, you can fracture the base and feminist support because of Leahy and Reid making that mistake. Do you really think NARAL, NOW and other feminist and left wing organizations are going to sit quietly for a capable, pro-life, evangelical Christian conservative becoming a Supreme Court Justice ? Not on your life. But, they are smart enough to sit back and see if the conservatives will do their job for them.
If you make this battle with some documented ideological conservative, you don't fracture their base, you unite it and make it a much tougher battle, one you could very well lose with the RINOs in the Senate.
If I am going to have a bloody battle, I would rather make sure I have the best shot at winning. Losing, and saying I gave my best, is not an option at this critical time.
When the RATS win in 2006 and 2008 because of infighting on the Right, don't say I didn't warn you. We can stand with the President, with Tom Delay, and Karl Rove, or we can stand on the sidelines while President Hillary and a RAT Congress dismantle everything we've worked for.
Thank you so much for your reply and encouragements! I too am astonished at the petty reaction by so many professional pundits on "our side".
She is an unknown to most people, and its natural that people will be suspicious of her qualifications.
The pattern seems to be, these days, for posts requiring senate confirmation, to pick someone with no paper trail, and then have them duck and weave their way past the senate hearings. That kind of thing is enormously unsatisfying to most people. It is not a recipe for getting the best people. We get them, occasionally, but its always a happy surprise when it happens.
I want someone with a paper trail. I want another Bork, frankly, someone who is outspoken and who has plenty of history defending constitutional principles, and the accepted wisdom seems to be, since the Bork debacle, that such a person has no chance. Obviously he had no chance before a Democratic Senate back in the eighties, but that was then and, I would like to think, this is now.
As I have said elsewhere, Miers will win me over if she is outspoken and brilliant when she faces the senate hearings. If she goes in and tries to avoid answering questions, I won't be happy. If she can state her positions (something that, these days, no one likes to do openly), if she can defend them, if she can light off a firestorm and face it boldly, I'll be on her side.
She is a stealth candidate, but that is something that a little boldness will cure the moment she faces the Senate, if boldness is in her. If she insists on remaining a stealth candidate, I'll continue to be uneasy about her.
"Citing Reagan, who I think is one of our greatest presidents, on Justices when he gave us O'Connor and the internationalist Kennedy, only reveals that these 'papered' nominees are as risky and unknown."
Reagan didn't have 55 senators who belonged to the same political party as him. He was up against much more than President Bush is now. There is little excuse not to take a stand on the composition of the high court, when what it requires is five more votes.
To be in the situation where Bush is losing some Senate support from his own side indicates he lacks the leadership to push this conservative movement agenda item through. For this, the GOP should continue to be supported?
"People like you are the reason the GOP is hemorraging."
Exactly.
"I think it is more a case of comprehension and not manipulation. Quite obviously you disagree with my opinion, but rather than address it substantively, you chose to take this direction."
That's the Mary Mapes school of thought for you. Don't question that it was a fake, but only what you are spinning.
[[That's the Mary Mapes school of thought for you. Don't question that it was a fake, but only what you are spinning.]]
Ad hominem from you, Frank ? I am shocked !! NOT !! Diversion is the typical response when one cannot provide substantive rebuttal. Your rebuttal can be summed up in one sentence: "He is trying to fake me out and manipulate me", while you clearly avoid the numerous observations made.
I wrote it, so it is obviously not fake. Comprehension 101 classes start in January.
You are repeatedly hiding behind your overdeployment of the term "ad hominem."
Not the best technique to convince me and others of your arguments.
You repeatedly engage in it, read my original post, address the points made and questions asked. What you are engaging in now is trying to frame the debate away from what was written, also known as diversion. It is a common debate tactic, but usually, very ineffective and certainly does not make your case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.